COMPLIANCE REVIEW REPORT 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Compliance Review Unit 

State Personnel Board 

June 20, 2016 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 
Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1 
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1 
Background ..................................................................................................................... 2 
Scope and Methodology .................................................................................................. 3 
Findings and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 4 
Examinations ............................................................................................................. 4 
Appointments ............................................................................................................. 7 
Equal Employment Opportunity ............................................................................... 17 
Personal Services Contracts .................................................................................... 18 
Mandated Training ................................................................................................... 21 
Departmental Response ................................................................................................ 24 
SPB Reply ..................................................................................................................... 24 

INTRODUCTION 

Established by the California Constitution, the State Personnel Board (the SPB or 
Board) is charged with enforcing and administering the civil service statutes, prescribing 
probationary periods and classifications, adopting regulations, and reviewing 
disciplinary actions and merit-related appeals. The SPB oversees the merit-based 
recruitment and selection process for the hiring of over 200,000 state employees. These 
employees provide critical services to the people of California, including but not limited 
to, protecting life and property, managing emergency operations, providing education, 
promoting the public health, and preserving the environment. The SPB provides 
direction to departments through the Board’s decisions, rules, policies, and consultation. 

Pursuant to Government Code section 18661, the SPB’s Compliance Review Unit 
(CRU) conducts compliance reviews of appointing authority’s personnel practices in five 
areas: examinations, appointments, equal employment opportunity (EEO), personal 
services contracts (PSC’s), and mandated training to ensure compliance with civil 
service laws and board regulations. The purpose of these reviews is to ensure state 
agencies are in compliance with merit-related laws, rules, and policies and to identify 
and share best practices identified during the reviews. The SPB conducts these reviews 
on a three-year cycle. 

The CRU may also conduct special investigations in response to a specific request or 
when the SPB obtains information suggesting a potential merit-related violation. 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The CRU conducted a routine compliance review of Department of Justice (DOJ) 
personnel practices in the areas of examinations, appointments, EEO, and PSC’s from 
October 1, 2014, through October 1, 2015 and mandated training from October 1, 2013, 
through October 30, 2015. The following table summarizes the compliance review 
findings. 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

Examinations 

Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires 
Were Not Separated from Applications 

Very Serious 

Appointments 

Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires 
Were Not Separated From Applications 

Very Serious 

Appointments 

Inappropriate Appointment via Departmental 
Reemployment 

Very Serious 

Area 

Finding 

Severity 

Appointments 

Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for 
All Appointments Reviewed 

Serious 

Appointments 

Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for 
the Appropriate Amount of Time 

Serious 

Appointments 

Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or 
Accepted After the Final File Date 

Non-Serious 
or Technical 

Appointments 

Job Opportunities Were Not Properly Advertised 

Observation 

Equal Employment 
Opportunity 

Equal Employment Opportunity Program 
Complied with Civil Service Laws and Board 
Rules 

In Compliance 

Personal Services 
Contracts 

Personal Services Contracts Complied with 
Procedural Requirements 

In Compliance 

Mandated Training 

Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All 
Supervisors 

Very Serious 

Mandated Training 

Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

Very Serious 

Mandated Training 

Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided 
for All Supervisors 

Very Serious 

 

A color-coded system is used to identify the severity of the violations as follows: 

. Red = Very Serious 
. Orange = Serious 
. Yellow = Non-serious or Technical 
. Green = In Compliance 
. Gray = Observation 

 
BACKGROUND 

The DOJ provides leadership, information, and education to ensure justice, safety, and 
liberty are available for all Californians. In doing so, the DOJ provides legal counsel to 
state officers, aids agencies in the administration of justice, and represents the people 
of California in civil and criminal matters. The DOJ also establishes and operates 
projects and programs that are dedicated to upholding California’s integrity and 
safeguarding California's human, natural, and financial resources for this and future 
generations. 

Furthermore, the DOJ employs approximately 4,513 employees in the following seven 
statewide divisions: Directorate (82), Administrative Support (830), Law Enforcement 
(962), California Justice Information Services (1,037), Civil Law (615), Criminal Law 
(621), and Public Rights (366). 

 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

The scope of the compliance review was limited to reviewing DOJ examinations, 
appointments, EEO program, and PSC’s from October 1, 2014, through October 1, 
2015 and mandated training from October 1, 2013, through October 30, 2015. The 
primary objective of the review was to determine if DOJ personnel practices, policies, 
and procedures complied with state civil service laws and board regulations, and to 
recommend corrective action for those deficiencies identified. 

A cross-section of DOJ examinations and appointments were selected to ensure that 
various samples of examinations and appointment types, classifications, and levels 
were reviewed. The CRU examined the documentation that the DOJ provided, which 
included examination plans, examination bulletins, job analyses, 511b’s, scoring results, 
notice of personnel action (NOPA) forms, vacancy postings, application screening 
criteria, hiring interview rating criteria, certification lists, transfer movement worksheets, 
employment history records, correspondence, and probation reports. 

The review of the DOJ EEO program included examining written EEO policies and 
procedures; the EEO officer’s role, duties, and reporting relationship; the internal 
discrimination complaint process; the upward mobility program; the reasonable 
accommodation program; the discrimination complaint process; and the Disability 
Advisory Committee (DAC). 

The DOJ’s PSC’s were also reviewed.1 It was beyond the scope of the compliance 
review to make conclusions as to whether DOJ justifications for the contracts were 
legally sufficient. The review was limited to whether DOJ practices, policies, and 
procedures relative to PSC’s complied with procedural requirements. 

1 If an employee organization requests the SPB to review any personal services contract during the SPB 
compliance review period or prior to the completion of the final compliance review report, the SPB will not 
audit the contract. Instead, the SPB will review the contract pursuant to its statutory and regulatory 
process. In this instance, none of the reviewed PSCs were challenged. 

 

In addition, the DOJ’s mandated training was reviewed to ensure all employees required 
to file statements of economic interest were provided ethics training and that all 
supervisors were provided basic supervisory and sexual harassment prevention training 
within statutory timelines. 

On May 11, 2016, an exit conference was held with the DOJ to explain and discuss the 
CRU’s initial findings and recommendations. On June 2, 2016, the CRU received and 
carefully reviewed the response, which is attached to this final compliance report. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

Examinations 

Examinations to establish an eligible list must be competitive and of such character as 
to fairly test and determine the qualifications, fitness, and ability of competitors to 
perform the duties of the class of position for which he or she seeks appointment. (Gov. 
Code, § 18930.) Examinations may be assembled or unassembled, written or oral, or in 
the form of a demonstration of skills, or any combination of those tests. (Ibid.) The 
Board establishes minimum qualifications for determining the fitness and qualifications 
of employees for each class of position and for applicants for examinations. (Gov. Code, 
§ 18931.) Within a reasonable time before the scheduled date of the examination, the 
designated appointing power shall announce or advertise the examination for the 
establishment of eligible lists. (Gov. Code, § 18933, subd. (a).) The advertisement shall 
contain such information as the date and place of the examination and the nature of the 
minimum qualifications. (Ibid.) Every applicant for examination shall file an application in 
the office of the department or a designated appointing power as directed in the 
examination announcement. (Gov. Code, § 18934.) Generally, the final earned rating of 
each person competing in any examination is to be determined by the weighted average 
of the earned ratings on all phases of the examination. (Gov. Code, § 18936.) Each 
competitor shall be notified in writing of the results of the examination when the 
employment list resulting from the examination is established. (Gov. Code, § 18938.5.) 

During the period under review, the DOJ conducted 53 examinations. The CRU 
reviewed 22 of those examinations, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Examination 
Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Applications 

Associate Personnel 
Analyst 

Departmental 
Promotional 

T&E2 and 
Presentation 

10/20/2014 

39 

2 The training and experience (T&E) examination is administered either online or in writing, and asks the 
applicant to answer multiple-choice questions about his or her level of training and/or experience 
performing certain tasks typically performed by those in this classification. Responses yield point values, 
which are totaled by the online system or a department exam analyst, and then assigned a percentage 
score. 

Classification 

Examination 
Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Applications 

Associate Personnel 
Analyst 

Departmental 
Promotional 

T&E and 
Presentation 

6/9/2015 

14 

CAAG, CEA, Criminal 
Law Division 

Open 

Supplemental3 

9/26/2014 

3 

CEA A, Director, DR3 

Open 

Supplemental 

6/3/2015 

3 

CEA B, Bureau Chief of 
BCIIS 

Open 

Supplemental 

9/16/2015 

2 

CEA B, Chief, Office of 
Human Resources 

Open 

Supplemental 

12/26/2014 

8 

CEA C, Director, CJIS 

Open 

Supplemental 

9/11/2015 

6 

Crime Studies Technician 
II 

Open 

QAP4 

10/23/2014 

 12 

Criminal Identification & 
Intelligence Supervisor 

Open 

QAP 

12/19/2014 

56 

Criminal Identification 
Specialist III 

Departmental 
Promotional 

QAP 

1/26/2015 

43 

Criminalist 

Open 

T&E 

11/21/2014 

57 

Criminalist 

Open 

T&E 

2/27/2015 

56 

Criminalist 

Open 

T&E 

8/18/2015 

40 

Digital Print Operator II 

Open 

Supplemental 

6/5/2015 

22 

3 In a supplemental application (SA) examination, applicants are not required to present themselves in 
person at a predetermined time and place. Supplemental applications are in addition to the regular 
application and must be completed in order to remain in the examination. Supplemental applications are 
also known as "rated" applications. 

4 The qualification appraisal panel (QAP) interview is the oral component of an examination whereby 
competitors appear before a panel of two or more evaluators. Candidates are rated and ranked against 
one another based on an assessment of their ability to perform in a job classification. 

Classification 

Examination 
Type 

Exam 
Components 

Final File 
Date 

No. of 
Applications 

Field Representative 

Open 

QAP 

1/26/2015 

72 

Legal Analyst 

Open 

T&E 

9/16/2014 

79 

SAAG, CEA, Appeals, 
Writs, and Trials 

Open 

Supplemental 

12/15/2014 

3 

SAAG, CEA, Employment 
& Admin Mandate 
Section 

Open 

Supplemental 

4/24/2015 

7 

SAAG, CEA, Opinion Unit 

Open 

Supplemental 

4/14/2015 

4 

Special Agent 

Open 

Written & 
Physical 
Abilities Test 

5/18/2015 

125 

Special Agent Trainee 

Open 

Written & 
Physical 
Abilities Test 

10/23/2014 

179 

Supervising Librarian I 

Departmental 
Promotional 

T&E 

8/3/2015 

3 

 

FINDING NO. 1 – Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not 
Separated from Applications 

 

Summary: Out of 22 exams reviewed, six exams included applications where 
EEO questionnaires were attached to the STD 678 employment 
application. Specifically, 64 of the 831 applications reviewed 
included EEO questionnaires that were not separated from the STD 
678 employment application. 

Criteria: Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring 
department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on 
any application indicating or in any way suggesting or pertaining to 
any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, 
subdivision (a) (e.g., a person's race, religious creed, color, national 
origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical 

condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender 
identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and 
veteran status). Applicants for employment in state civil service are 
asked to voluntarily provide ethnic data about themselves where 
such data is determined by CalHR to be necessary to an 
assessment of the ethnic and sex fairness of the selection process 
and to the planning and monitoring of affirmative action efforts. 
(Gov. Code, § 19705.) The EEO questionnaire of the state 
application form (STD 678) states, “This questionnaire will be 
separated from the application prior to the examination and will not 
be used in any employment decisions.” 

Severity: Very Serious. The applicants’ protected classes were visible, 
subjecting the agency to potential liability. 

Cause: The DOJ states that it is the regular process of the DOJ Exam Unit 
to remove the EEO form from all applications. The DOJ believes 
that one exam analyst may not have understood that process and 
therefore did not remove the forms from all of his/her examination 
applications. 

Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the Executive Officer’s 
approval of these findings and recommendations, the DOJ submit 
to the CRU a written corrective action plan that the department will 
implement to ensure conformity with in the future that EEO 
questionnaires are separated from all applications. Copies of any 
relevant documentation should be included with the plan. 

Appointments 

In all cases not excepted or exempted by Article VII of the California Constitution, the 
appointing power must fill positions by appointment, including cases of transfers, 
reinstatements, promotions, and demotions in strict accordance with the Civil Service 
Act and Board rules. (Gov. Code, § 19050.) Appointments made from eligible lists, by 
way of transfer, or by way of reinstatement, must be made on the basis of merit and 
fitness, which requires consideration of each individual’s job-related qualifications for a 
position, including his or her knowledge, skills, abilities, experience, and physical and 
mental fitness. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 250, subd. (a).) 

During the compliance review period, the DOJ made 1,288 appointments. The CRU 
reviewed 144 of those appointments, which are listed below: 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

Associate Personnel 
Analyst 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

3 

Auditor I 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

4 

Criminal Identification 
Specialist II 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Criminal Intelligence 
Specialist I 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Criminal Intelligence 
Specialist II 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

6 

Department of Justice 
Administrator II 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

10 

Deputy Atttorney 
General III 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

9 

Deputy Atttorney 
General IV 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

10 

Deputy Attorney III 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Latent Print Analyst II 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Office Technician 
(Typing) 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

5 

Program Technician 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

11 

Senior Personnel 
Specialist 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Special Agent 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Special Agent 
(Supervisor) 

Certification List 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

8 

Special Assistant 
Attorney General 

Exempt 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Senior Advisor to the 
Attorney General 

Exempt 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

Office Assistant 
(General) 

Limited 
Employment 
Appointment 
Program (LEAP) 

Temporary 

Fulltime 

4 

Office Technician 
(Typing) 

LEAP 

Temporary 

Fulltime 

6 

Staff Services Analyst 

LEAP 

Temporary 

Fulltime 

1 

Assistant Information 
Systems Analyst 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Business Services 
Assistant (Specialist) 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Department of Justice 
Administrator II 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Investigative Auditor 
III, DOJ 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

4 

Investigative Auditor 
IV, DOJ 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Legal Analyst 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

4 

Legal Assistant 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Property Controller II 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Senior Legal Analyst 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Staff Program Analyst 
(Specialist) 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Staff Services 
Manager I 

Mandatory 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Associate 
Governmental 
Program Analyst 

Permissive 
Reinstatement 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Systems Software 
Specialist I 
(Technical) 

Retired 
Annuitant 

Temporary 

Intermittent 

1 

Systems Software 
Specialist III 
(Technical) 

Retired 
Annuitant 

Temporary 

Intermittent 

1 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

Tenure 

Time Base 

No. of 
Appointments 

Special Consultant 

Temporary 
Authorization 
Utilization (TAU) 

Temporary 

Fulltime 

2 

Department of Justice 
Administrator I 

Training and 
Development 
(T&D) 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Legal Secretary 

T&D 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Associate 
Governmental 
Program Analyst 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

9 

Criminal Identification 
Specialist I 

Transfer 
(Demotion) 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Criminal Identification 
Specialist I 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Criminal Identification 
Specialist II 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Criminal Intelligence 
Specialist I 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Criminal Intelligence 
Specialist III 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Department of Justice 
Administrator I 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Department of Justice 
Administrator I 

Transfer 

Permanent 

4/5 

1 

Information Systems 
Technician Supervisor 
II 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Investigative Auditor 
III 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Office Assistant 
(General) 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Special Agent 

Transfer 
(Reemployment) 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

Special Agent 
(Supervisor) 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

2 

Special Assistant 
Attorney General 

Transfer 

Permanent 

Fulltime 

1 

 

FINDING NO. 2 – Equal Employment Opportunity Questionnaires Were Not 
Separated From Applications 

 

Summary: Out of 144 appointment files reviewed, 54 files included 
applications with EEO questionnaires attached to the STD 678 
employment application. Specifically, 595 of the 2,926 applications 
reviewed included EEO questionnaires that were not separated 
from the STD 678 employment application. 

Criteria: Government Code section 19704 makes it unlawful for a hiring 
department to require or permit any notation or entry to be made on 
any application indicating or in any way suggesting or pertaining to 
any protected category listed in Government Code section 12940, 
subdivision (a) (e.g., a person's race, religious creed, color, national 
origin, ancestry, physical disability, mental disability, medical 
condition, genetic information, marital status, sex, gender, gender 
identity, gender expression, age, sexual orientation, or military and 
veteran status). Applicants for employment in state civil service are 
asked to provide voluntarily ethnic data about themselves where 
such data is determined by CalHR to be necessary to an 
assessment of the ethnic and sex fairness of the selection process 
and to the planning and monitoring of affirmative action efforts. 
(Gov. Code, § 19705.) The EEO questionnaire of the state 
application form (STD 678) states, “This questionnaire will be 
separated from the application prior to the examination and will not 
be used in any employment decisions.” 

Severity: Very Serious. The applicants’ protected classes were visible, 
subjecting the agency to potential liability. 

Cause: The DOJ states its current process is to remove the EEO 
questionnaire from applications; however, training inconsistencies 
with staff persist. 

Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the Executive Officer’s 
approval of these findings and recommendations, the DOJ submit 
to the CRU a written corrective action plan that the department will 
implement to ensure conformity with in the future that EEO 
questionnaires are separated from all applications. Copies of any 
relevant documentation should be included with the plan. 

FINDING NO. 3 – Inappropriate Appointment via Departmental Reemployment 

 

Summary: The DOJ did not provide any documentation to the CRU to show 
that the individual hired was reachable on the departmental 
reemployment list for the Special Agent, DOJ classification. 
Specifically, the candidate was in rank 30 at the time of the hire, a 
rank that was not reachable. While ranks one through 12 and ranks 
14 through 29 had been cleared, an individual in rank 13 was 
coded as “interested” and was not cleared from the list at the time 
of appointment. The department claims that their certification 
technician coded the individual in rank 13 incorrectly and that they 
never received a response letter or application from this individual. 
The DOJ was unable to provide documentation demonstrating that 
the individual in rank 13 was not interested in the position. 

Criteria: California Government Code section 19056 mandates that the 
individual standing highest on a departmental reemployment list 
shall be certified and appointed. Therefore, the rule of one name 
applies to subdivisional and departmental reemployment lists 
wherein the first interested individual on the list must be selected if 
a list appointment is to be the method of appointment. 

Severity: Very Serious. Without documentation establishing the basis for not 
hiring the highest ranked individual on the departmental 
reemployment list, the CRU could not verify whether the 
appointment was properly conducted. 

Cause: The DOJ states that documentation for the reemployment list was 
not sufficient to ensure compliance with California Government 
Code section 19056. 

Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the Executive Officer’s 
approval of these findings and recommendations, the DOJ submit 
to the CRU a written corrective action plan that addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with 
the requirements of California Government Code section 19056. 
Copies of any relevant documentation should be included with the 
plan. 

FINDING NO. 4 – Probationary Evaluations Were Not Provided for All 
Appointments Reviewed 

 

Summary: The DOJ did not prepare, complete, and/or retain 30 required 
probationary reports of performance. 

Classification 

Appointment 
Type 

No. of 
Appointments 

No. of Uncompleted 
Prob. Reports 

Associate Personnel Analyst 

List 
Appointment 

2 

2 

Auditor I 

List 
Appointment 

1 

1 

Criminal Intelligence 
Specialist I 

List 
Appointment 

1 

3 

Criminal Intelligence 
Specialist II 

List 
Appointment 

1 

3 

Deputy Attorney General III 

List 
Appointment 

3 

6 

Deputy Attorney General IV 

List 
Appointment 

3 

5 

DOJ Administrator II 

List 
Appointment 

2 

3 

Office Technician (Typing) 

List 
Appointment 

2 

3 

Program Technician 

List 
Appointment 

1 

1 

Criminal Identification 
Specialist I 

Transfer 

1 

1 

DOJ Administrator I 

Transfer 

1 

2 

Total 

18 

30 

 

Criteria: A new probationary period is not required when an employee is 
appointed by reinstatement with a right of return. (Cal. Code Regs., 
tit. 2, § 322, subd. (d)(2).) However, the service of a probationary 
period is required when an employee enters state civil service by 
permanent appointment from an employment list. (Cal. Code Regs., 
tit. 2, § 322, subd. (a).) In addition, unless waived by the appointing 
power, a new probationary period is required when an employee is 
appointed to a position under the following circumstances: (1) 
without a break in service in the same class in which the employee 
has completed the probationary period, but under a different 
appointing power; and (2) without a break in service to a class with 

substantially the same or lower level of duties and responsibilities 
and salary range as a class in which the employee has completed 
the probationary period. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 322, subd. (c)(1) 
& (2).) 

During the probationary period, the appointing power is required to 
evaluate the work and efficiency of a probationer at sufficiently 
frequent intervals to keep the employee adequately informed of 
progress on the job. (Gov. Code, § 19172; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 2, § 
599.795.) The appointing power must prepare a written appraisal of 
performance each one-third of the probationary period. (Cal. Code 
Regs., tit. 2, § 599.795.) 

Severity: Serious. The probationary period is the final step in the selection 
process to ensure that the individual selected can successfully 
perform the full scope of their job duties. Failing to use the 
probationary period to assist an employee in improving his or her 
performance or terminating the appointment upon determination 
that the appointment is not a good job/person match is unfair to the 
employee and serves to erode the quality of state government. 

Cause: The DOJ states that it is incumbent upon the supervisor to not only 
provide the reports on a timely basis to the employees but also to 
ensure the original signed report is forwarded to the Office of 
Human Resources for placement into the employee’s official 
personnel file. This is a highly manual process and the cause for 
missing evaluations is due to constraints on being able to follow up 
on a timely and more frequent basis with supervisors. 

Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the Executive Officer’s 
approval of these findings and recommendations, the DOJ submit 
to the CRU a written corrective action plan that addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with 
the probationary requirements of Government Code section 19172. 

FINDING NO. 5 – Appointment Documentation Was Not Kept for the Appropriate 
Amount of Time 

 

Summary: The DOJ failed to retain personnel records such as NOPA’s, VPOS 
Bulletins, and applications. Specifically, of the 144 appointments 

reviewed, the DOJ did not retain the following: 19 VPOS Bulletins 
and 21 NOPAs. Additionally, seven of the 144 appointments 
reviewed were missing the hired applicant’s application and two of 
the 144 appointment files reviewed were missing all but the hired 
applicant’s application. 

Criteria: As specified in section 26 of the Board’s regulations, appointing 
powers are required to retain records related to affirmative action, 
equal employment opportunity, examinations, merit, selection, and 
appointments for a minimum period of five years from the date the 
record is created. These records are required to be readily 
accessible and retained in an orderly and systematic manner. (Cal. 
Code Reg., tit. 2, § 26.) Section 174 of the Board’s regulations 
specifically applies to examination applications and requires a two 
year retention period. 

Severity: Serious. Without documentation, the CRU could not verify if the 
appointments were properly conducted. 

Cause: The DOJ states that they were unable to locate a portion of the 
required supporting appointment documentation, which was likely 
caused by various factors. Some documents were not filed due to 
errors/backlog caused by a shortage of administrative staff (for the 
time period of the audit). In addition, some documents were not 
signed by the employee or returned to the OHR. 

Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the Executive Officer’s 
approval of these findings and recommendations, the DOJ submit 
to the CRU a written corrective action plan that addresses the 
corrections the department will implement to ensure conformity with 
the record retention requirements of California Code of Regulations 
title 2, section 26. Copies of any relevant documentation should be 
included with the plan. 

FINDING NO. 6 – Applications Were Not Date Stamped and/or Accepted After 
the Final File Date 

 

Summary: The DOJ accepted and processed 1,278 out of 2,926 applications 
that were not date stamped and 132 applications that were date 
stamped after the final filing date. 

 

Criteria: California Code Regulations, title 2, section 174 (Rule 174) requires 
timely filing of applications: All applications must be filed at the 
place, within the time, in the manner, and on the form specified in 
the examination announcement. 

 Filing an application ‘within the time’ shall mean postmarked by the 
postal service or date stamped at one of the department’s offices 
(or appropriate office of the agency administering the examination) 
by the date specified. 

 An application that is not postmarked or date stamped by the 
specified date shall be accepted, if one of the following conditions 
as detailed in Rule 174 apply: (1) the application was delayed due 
to verified error; (2) the application was submitted in error to the 
wrong state agency and is either postmarked or date stamped on or 
before the specified date; (3) the employing agency verifies 
examination announcement distribution problems that prevented 
timely notification to an employee of a promotional examination; or 
(4) the employing agency verifies that the applicant failed to receive 
timely notice of promotional examination. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 
174, suds. (a), (b), (c), & (d).) The same final filing date procedures 
are applied to the selection process used to fill a job vacancy. 

Severity: Non-Serious or Technical. Final filing dates are established to 
ensure all applicants are given the same amount of time in which to 
apply for a job vacancy and to set a deadline for the recruitment. 
Therefore, although the acceptance of applications after the final 
filing date may give some applicants more time to prepare their 
application than other applicants who meet the final filing date, the 
acceptance of late applications will not impact the results of the job 
vacancy selection. 

Cause: The DOJ states that they did not have a centralized process for 
receiving applications from candidates to ensure all applications 
received were date stamped and received by the final filing date. 

Action: It is recommended that within 60 days of the Executive Officer’s 
approval of these findings and recommendations, the DOJ submit 

to the CRU a written corrective action plan that the department will 
implement to ensure conformity with Rule 174. Copies of any 
relevant documentation should be included with the plan. 

OBSERVATION 1 – Position Tenure Change 

 

The DOJ advertised and filled four positions on a limited-term basis. The DOJ later 
converted the tenure of the positions to permanent. While not a violation of any specific 
law or rule, it is considered a best hiring practice for departments to conduct recruitment 
strategies that are “as broad and inclusive as necessary to ensure the identification of 
appropriate candidate groups.” (Merit Selection Manual [MSM], § 1100, p. 1100.2 (Oct. 
2003); Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, §50.) By not indicating the possibility that the positions 
could become permanent in the future, the DOJ narrowed its candidate group to a 
smaller group of individuals who had interest in a less than permanent appointment. 

Equal Employment Opportunity 

Each state agency is responsible for an effective EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19790.) 
The appointing power for each state agency has the major responsibility for monitoring 
the effectiveness of its EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19794.) To that end, the appointing 
power must issue a policy statement committed to equal employment opportunity; issue 
procedures for filing, processing, and resolving discrimination complaints; issue 
procedures for providing equal upward mobility and promotional opportunities; and 
cooperate with the California Department of Human Resources (CalHR) by providing 
access to all required files, documents and data. (Ibid.) In addition, the appointing power 
must appoint, at the managerial level, an EEO officer, who shall report directly to, and 
be under the supervision of, the director of the department to develop, implement, 
coordinate, and monitor the department’s EEO program. (Gov. Code, § 19795.) 

Because the EEO Officer investigates and ensures proper handling of discrimination, 
sexual harassment and other employee complaints, the position requires separation 
from the regular chain of command, as well as regular and unencumbered access to the 
head of the organization. 

Each state agency must establish a separate committee of employees who are 
individuals with a disability, or who have an interest in disability issues, to advise the 
head of the agency on issues of concern to employees with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 
19795, subd. (b)(1).) The department must invite all employees to serve on the 
committee and take appropriate steps to ensure that the final committee is comprised of 

members who have disabilities or who have an interest in disability issues. (Gov. Code, 
§ 19795, subd. (b)(2).) 

The CRU reviewed the DOJ’s EEO program that was in effect during the compliance 
review period. 

FINDING NO. 7 – Equal Employment Opportunity Program Complied with Civil 
Service Laws and Board Rules 

 

After reviewing the policies, procedures, and programs necessary for compliance with 
the EEO program’s role and responsibilities according to statutory and regulatory 
guidelines, the CRU determined that the DOJ EEO program provided employees with 
information and guidance on the EEO process including instructions on how to file 
discrimination claims. Furthermore, the EEO program outlines the roles and 
responsibilities of the EEO Officer, as well as supervisors and managers. The EEO 
Officer, who is at a managerial level, reports directly to the director of the DOJ. In 
addition, the DOJ has an established Disability Advisory Committee (DAC) that reports 
to the director on issues affecting persons with a disability. The DOJ also provided 
evidence of its efforts to promote EEO in its hiring and employment practices, to 
increase its hiring of persons with a disability, and to offer upward mobility opportunities 
for its entry-level staff. 

Personal Services Contracts 

A PSC includes any contract, requisition, or purchase order under which labor or 
personal services is a significant, separately identifiable element, and the business or 
person performing the services is an independent contractor that does not have status 
as an employee of the State. (Cal. Code Reg., tit. 2, § 547.59.) The California 
Constitution has an implied civil service mandate limiting the state’s authority to contract 
with private entities to perform services the state has historically or customarily 
performed. Government Code section 19130, subdivision (a), however, codifies 
exceptions to the civil service mandate where PSC’s achieve cost savings for the state. 
PSC’s that are of a type enumerated in subdivision (b) of Government Code section 
19130 are also permissible. Subdivision (b) contracts include private contracts for a new 
state function, services that are not available within state service, services that are 
incidental to a contract for the purchase or lease of real or personal property, and 
services that are of an urgent, temporary, or occasional nature. 

For cost-savings PSCs, a state agency is required to notify the SPB of its intent to 
execute such a contract. (Gov. Code, § 19131.) For subdivision (b) contracts, the SPB 

reviews the adequacy of the proposed or executed contract at the request of an 
employee organization representing state employees. (Gov. Code, § 19132.) 

During the compliance review period, the DOJ had 59 PSC’s that were in effect and 
subject to Department of General Services (DGS) approval, and thus our procedural 
review. The CRU reviewed 22 of those PSC’s, which are listed below: 

Vendor 

Services 

Contract 
Dates 

Contract 
Amount 

Justification 
Identified 

A & P Helicoptors, 
Inc. 

Service/Maintenance 

7/1/15- 
6/30/17 

$600,000.00 

Yes 

Ace Attorney 
Services, Inc. 

Service/Maintenance 

6/3/13- 
8/31/15 

$839,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

5/1/12- 
5/1/16 

$1,700,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

12/8/14- 
12/8/15 

$200,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

6/1/12- 
6/30/16 

$1,840,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

5/1/14- 
12/31/15 

$320,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

11/3/2010 
-6/30/16 

$242,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

10/23/14- 
6/30/16 

$150,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

2/24/10- 
6/30/16 

$530,000.00 

Yes 

Confidential Expert 
Witness 

Expert Witness 

12/30/10- 
6/30/16 

$525,000.00 

Yes 

First Data Merchant 
Services Corp. 

Service/Maintenance 

6/1/15- 
5/31/17 

$1,214,000.00 

Yes 

First Data Merchant 
Services Corp. 

Service/Maintenance 

1/1/11- 
5/31/17 

$2,444,000.00 

Yes 

Vendor 

Services 

Contract 
Dates 

Contract 
Amount 

Justification 
Identified 

Hawke McKeon & 
Sniscak LLP. 

Legal Consultant 

7/1/05- 
12/31/16 

$13,885,000.0 
0 

Yes 

Heli-Flite Inc. dba 
Aris Helicopters 

Service/Maintenance 

7/1/15- 
6/30/17 

$600,000.00 

Yes 

Imperial Parking 
(U.S.), LLC. 

Service/Maintenance 

12/1/14- 
6/30/16 

$430,996.00 

Yes 

Inter-Con Security 
Systems, Inc. 

Service/Maintenance 

7/21/07- 
12/31/15 

$3,279,343.07 

Yes 

K&D Installation 
Inc. dba Boyer 
Moving & Storage 

Service/Maintenance 

3/1/15- 
6/30/15 

$207,400.00 

Yes 

Life Technologies 
Corporation 

Service/Maintenance 

10/1/14- 
9/30/16 

$1,073,117.76 

Yes 

PJ Helicoptors Inc. 

Service/Maintenance 

7/01/15- 
6/30/17 

$600,000.00 

Yes 

Schneider Electric 
IT USA, Inc. 

Service/Maintenance 

7/1/15- 
6/30/18 

$293,044.96 

Yes 

Shields For 
Families 

Training & 
Service/Maintenance 

9/1/15- 
8/31/17 

$190,000.00 

Yes 

Tecan US, Inc. 

Service/Maintenance 

2/1/15- 
1/31/17 

$270,921.84 

Yes 

 

FINDING NO. 8 – Personal Services Contracts Complied with Procedural 
Requirements 

 

When a state agency requests approval from the DGS for a subdivision (b) contract, the 
agency must include with its contract transmittal a written justification that includes 
specific and detailed factual information that demonstrates how the contract meets one 
or more conditions specified in Government Code section 19131, subdivision (b). (Cal. 
Code Reg., tit. 2, § 547.60.) 

The total amount of all the PSC’s reviewed was $31,433,823.63. It was beyond the 
scope of the review to make conclusions as to whether DOJ justifications for the 

contract were legally sufficient. For all PSCs subject to DGS approval, the DOJ provided 
specific and detailed factual information in the written justifications as to how each of the 
22 contracts met at least one condition set forth in Government Code section 19131, 
subdivision (b). Accordingly, the DOJ PSCs complied with procedural requirements. 

Mandated Training 

Each state agency shall offer at least semiannually to each of its filers an orientation 
course on the relevant ethics statutes and regulations that govern the official conduct of 
state officials. (Gov. Code, § 1146.1) New filers must be trained within six months of 
appointment. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3) 

Each department must provide its new supervisors supervisory training within twelve 
months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4 subds. (b) and (c.).) The training must 
be a minimum of 80 hours, 40 of which must be structured and given by a qualified 
instructor. The other 40 hours may be done on the job by a higher-level supervisor or 
manager. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4 subd. (b).) 

Additionally, each department must provide its supervisors two hours of sexual 
harassment training every two years. New supervisors must be provided supervisory 
training within six months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1 subd. (a).) 

The CRU reviewed the DOJ’s mandated training program that was in effect during the 
compliance review period. The DOJ’s supervisory training, ethics training, and sexual 
harassment prevention training were found to be out of compliance. 

FINDING NO. 9 – Supervisory Training Was Not Provided for All Supervisors 

 

Summary: The DOJ did not provide basic supervisory training to 11 of 63 new 
supervisors within twelve months of appointment. 

Criteria: Each department must provide its new supervisors supervisory 
training within twelve months of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 
19995.4 subd. (b) and (c.).) The training must be a minimum of 80 
hours, 40 of which must be structured and given by a qualified 
instructor. The other 40 hours may be done on the job by a higherlevel 
supervisor or manager. (Gov. Code, § 19995.4 subd. (b).) 

Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new managers 
are properly trained. Without proper training, new supervisory 

employees may not properly carry out their supervisory roles, 
including managing employees. 

Cause: The DOJ states that despite notifying all employees and their 
supervisors of the mandated supervisory training, supervisors do 
not always ensure their employees take the training, possibly due 
to workload or inability to enroll in a timely manner. 

Action: The DOJ must take appropriate steps to ensure that new 
supervisors are provided supervisory training within the twelve 
months. 

It is therefore recommended that no later than 60 days after the 
SPB’s Executive Officer’s approval of these findings and 
recommendations, the DOJ must establish a plan to ensure 
compliance with supervisory training mandates and submit to the 
SPB a written report of compliance. 

FINDING NO. 10 – Ethics Training Was Not Provided for All Filers 

 

Summary: The DOJ did not provide ethics training to 14 of 1083 existing filers. 
In addition, the DOJ did not provide ethics training to 32 of 169 new 
filers within six months of their appointment. 

Criteria: New filers must be provided ethics training within six months of 
appointment. Exiting filers must be trained at least once during 
each consecutive period of two calendar years commencing on the 
first odd-numbered year thereafter. (Gov. Code, § 11146.3, subd. 
(b).) 

Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure that its filers are 
aware of prohibitions related to their official position and influence. 

Cause: The DOJ states that all filers were provided a notice with 
information and instructions for the ethics training. The cause for 
this finding is either failure on the part of the employee to take the 
course or forward a completion certificate to the ethics training filing 
officer. 

Action: The DOJ must take appropriate steps to ensure that filers are 
provided ethics training within the time periods prescribed. 

It is therefore recommended that no later than 60 days after the 
SPB’s Executive Officer’s approval of these findings and 
recommendations, the DOJ must establish a plan to ensure 
compliance with ethics training mandates and submit to the SPB a 
written report of compliance. 

FINDING NO. 11 – Sexual Harassment Training Was Not Provided for All 
Supervisors 

 

Summary: The DOJ did not provide sexual harassment prevention training to 
seven of 124 new supervisors within six months of their 
appointment. In Addition, the DOJ did not provide sexual 
harassment prevention training to 11 of 524 existing supervisors 
every two years. 

Criteria: Each department must provide its supervisors two hours of sexual 
harassment training every two years. New supervisors must be 
provided sexual harassment prevention training within six months 
of appointment. (Gov. Code, § 12950.1 subd. (a).) 

Severity: Very Serious. The department does not ensure its new supervisors 
are properly trained to respond to sexual harassment or unwelcome 
sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or 
physical harassment of a sexual nature. This limits the 
department’s ability to retain a quality workforce, impacts employee 
morale and productivity, and subjects the department to litigation. 

Cause: The DOJ states that sexual harassment training is mandatory and 
the DOJ notifies all required staff to attend. Despite notification of 
the requirement, new supervisors are not always able to attend 
within the six-month timeframe. Follow-up for existing employees is 
a manual process and although the DOJ strives to ensure 
compliance every two years, not all employees complete the 
training for a variety of reasons. 

Action: The DOJ must take appropriate steps to ensure that its supervisors 
are provided sexual harassment training within the time periods 
prescribed. 

It is therefore recommended that no later than 60 days after the 
SPB’s Executive Officer’s approval of these findings and 
recommendations, the DOJ must establish a plan to ensure 
compliance with sexual harassment training mandates and submit 
to the SPB a written report of compliance. 

DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSE 

The DOJ’s response is attached as Attachment 1. 

SPB REPLY 

Based upon the DOJ’s written response, the DOJ will comply with the CRU 
recommendations and findings and provide the CRU a corrective action plan. 

It is further recommended that the DOJ comply with the afore-stated recommendations 
within 60 days of the Executive Officer’s approval and submit to the CRU a written 
report of compliance.